I wouldn't say there's a 'main' idea. The so much going on, and still its only 208 pages or something like that. Rejection of what's given to you, that kinda fits with what you summed it up as, creating your own, defying influence, individual power, self-destruction as creation, etc.

Tylers aim appears to be based around neoanarchy or sumfin like that. The main principle being takin humanity back to a much more basic existance where the living of life is important and not the owning of possesions that make us feel comfortable/ succesful in a merely cosmetic fashion. The self destruction element struck me as I'd rather feel pain than nothin. Although Giggan hit the nail on the head when he said theres a lot goin on in the novel.

Wot do you want out of life, wot story do you want people to tell when your dead. Wot was your philosophy before you read fight club.

we're not supposed to agree with tyler. at least i dont think so. he presents a lot of very attractive ideas and philosophies. i agree with a lot of them and overall just like them. but i dont think we're supposed to agree with them. and thats the thing, because theyre attractive he gets a lot of support. but most fascism is initially attractive. and thats what tylers preaching. he builds an army of guerrillas and produces mass chaos. cool in movies and books but imagine that happening in your city. itd be pretty fucked up.

social change is a good thing and i think tyler presents an interesting way to make that happen. but the fact that tyler doesnt win and that jack wants to stop him even though no one else does shows that tyler is wrong. anarchy and nihilism may seem attractive but they are not practical.

we're not supposed to agree with tyler. at least i dont think so. he presents a lot of very attractive ideas and philosophies. i agree with a lot of them and overall just like them. but i dont think we're supposed to agree with them. and thats the thing, because theyre attractive he gets a lot of support. but most fascism is initially attractive. and thats what tylers preaching. he builds an army of guerrillas and produces mass chaos. cool in movies and books but imagine that happening in your city. itd be pretty fucked up.

I agree that in the book, Tyler's more radical, and it's more explicit that we're not supposed to agree with him (he murders people in the book versus major pranking in the film). In the film, the narrator may find a happy median at the end. It's implied he'd care for the woman, and has rejected what Tyler wanted but may just live with it. In the book, his subconscious (Tyler) decides not to destroy the building. The difference being the narrator doesn't make it out sane.

ejrathke wrote:

social change is a good thing and i think tyler presents an interesting way to make that happen. but the fact that tyler doesnt win and that jack wants to stop him even though no one else does shows that tyler is wrong. anarchy and nihilism may seem attractive but they are not practical.

Anarchy =/= nihilism. I consider myself an existentialist, and I'm an anarchist. I don't oppose a government that protects natural rights exclusively, but the world has yet to see that, and I think it may be an impossibility (refer to my sig). Anarchy is misunderstood because asshole use the wors synonymous with 'chaos'. Anarchy is the absence of government, not the absence of order. It is the most peaceful method of coexistence, because force is ONLY ever used defensively, in response to preemptive force.

Anarchy is the absence of government, not the absence of order. It is the most peaceful method of coexistence, because force is ONLY ever used defensively, in response to preemptive force.

If, in anarchy, force is only used defensively, then how could there be any preemptive force? You're basically saying that anarchy is peaceful because people defend from attack rather than attack others. But if they're defending from attack, then somebody's attacking. But how can that exist if your premise is sound?

I'm wary of any statement, be it religious, political, or otherwise, that falls into this pattern: Start with some ludicrous utopian vision of society, pretend that we've somehow worked backward from there into where we are now, and explain that if we just trust you and see the world through your eyes then we could get back to that blissful state of being and everyone would be happy.

You want anarchy? You've already got it. Just adjust your semantics. There is no such thing as "law," just mob rule with better record keeping. The notion that removing this record keeping will eliminate mob rule is silly. Laws are just pieces of paper that resulted from human nature. Destroying them will not destroy human nature.

Apologies if this seems like I'm derailing this thread, I can connect this back to the topic. You're saying that if we'd all just wise up and stay out of each other's way, things would be so simple and easy. I'm saying that it's precisely this notion that Fight Club debunks.

When trying to nail down the theme of Fight Club, the best you can do is take a step back from Tyler and the Narrator and Bob and Marla, and look at the basic story arc. The narrator starts out trapped in a life he doesn't want, but can't figure out how to change it. He doesn't question anything, he accepts the options that are given to him: what job to take based on his skills, what furniture to buy based on his budget. He's not really questioning, just selecting from multiple choice lists.

Tyler arrives and woos him with revolutionary ideas that cause him to question everything that he formerly accepted. For some time, things are great. But like most people, they're not satisfied with this simple contentment. They choose to impose their new view of the world on the rest of society, whether it is welcome or not.

Project Mayhem starts, and what's the first rule? You don't ask questions. That's precisely where they fucked up. They think they know what's best for people. They think they've got it all figured out. They become that which they tried to escape.

The theme of Fight Club, as best I can tell, is: beware the person who tells you the answers are simple -- especially when that person is yourself.

If, in anarchy, force is only used defensively, then how could there be any preemptive force? You're basically saying that anarchy is peaceful because people defend from attack rather than attack others. But if they're defending from attack, then somebody's attacking. But how can that exist if your premise is sound?

I'm wary of any statement, be it religious, political, or otherwise, that falls into this pattern: Start with some ludicrous utopian vision of society, pretend that we've somehow worked backward from there into where we are now, and explain that if we just trust you and see the world through your eyes then we could get back to that blissful state of being and everyone would be happy.

Clearly, I need to clarify.

While anarchy =/= nihilism, and =/= chaos, it is also =/= utopia. Criminals would still exist, as they do, but outside of evil preemptive force, no other evil force would exist, as does now, legitimized by government. We now hurt people who do not hurt us, that would not happen with "anarchy" (I like the term self-governance, because government would still exist, it would just be made up of individuals, thus not a brutal mob rule). It would be more peaceful and prosperous than current society, yet human nature would still exist. As it does today, even with mob rule.

As for the part about the first rule of Proj Mayhem being no questions, while I also disagree with this rule, it goes to show something about how we become followers. There's times in all of our lives where we were denied the ability to ask questions. The military uses this law to govern troops. Does the military do the right thing? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's permitted based on the justification of the cause. If one is prevented from asking questions, one cannot come to understand the cause fully. It's like trying to fix a problem with blinders to everything but the problem. It can be done, it can be efficient, but it opens the door to blowback.

idk i just thought that fight club 's main idea was some sort of inidivaul freedom you know. eventhough the book talks about a huge revolution type of thing i still think it was still about freedom from yourself . only after we have lost everything are free to do anything. its only after diaster are we reserected . this quotes empahasises a liberty of oneself. the only way improve your life is too break everything in it. not litterally but metaphorically. well thats wat i got out of it and thats wat i use to help me . idk

idk i just thought that fight club 's main idea was some sort of inidivaul freedom you know. eventhough the book talks about a huge revolution type of thing i still think it was still about freedom from yourself . only after we have lost everything are free to do anything. its only after diaster are we reserected . this quotes empahasises a liberty of oneself. the only way improve your life is too break everything in it. not litterally but metaphorically. well thats wat i got out of it and thats wat i use to help me . idk

idk i just thought that fight club 's main idea was some sort of inidivaul freedom you know. eventhough the book talks about a huge revolution type of thing i still think it was still about freedom from yourself . only after we have lost everything are free to do anything. its only after diaster are we reserected . this quotes empahasises a liberty of oneself. the only way improve your life is too break everything in it. not litterally but metaphorically. well thats wat i got out of it and thats wat i use to help me . idk

(idk i just thought that fight club 's main idea was some sort of inidivaul freedom you know. eventhough the book talks about a huge revolution type of thing i still think it was still about freedom from yourself . only after we have lost everything are free to do anything. its only after diaster are we reserected . this quotes empahasises a liberty of oneself. the only way improve your life is too break everything in it. not litterally but metaphorically. well thats wat i got out of it and thats wat i use to help me . idk) x3

idk i just thought that fight club 's main idea was some sort of inidivaul freedom you know. eventhough the book talks about a huge revolution type of thing i still think it was still about freedom from yourself . only after we have lost everything are free to do anything. its only after diaster are we reserected . this quotes empahasises a liberty of oneself. the only way improve your life is too break everything in it. not litterally but metaphorically. well thats wat i got out of it and thats wat i use to help me . idk

None of that is wrong or runs counter to what we have said, so don't get discour'd.

I think whatever the meaning of fight club is to you is the correct meaning, and it's different for every person. Unlike in school where they tell you what's right and wrong when analyzing a book, I don't think it's that simple in real life.

I think whatever the meaning of fight club is to you is the correct meaning, and it's different for every person. Unlike in school where they tell you what's right and wrong when analyzing a book, I don't think it's that simple in real life.

I can agree with that to an extent, but if someone is claiming that fight club's theme is say...a protest against the viet nam war or something equally ridiculous, then they're just wrong. Just saying something is true because it's true to a person doesn't necessarily make it true.

I can agree with that to an extent, but if someone is claiming that fight club's theme is say...a protest against the viet nam war or something equally ridiculous, then they're just wrong. Just saying something is true because it's true to a person doesn't necessarily make it true.

As of any story, there is not only one theme present but rather a shit load. If you want to know the themes of fight club it is best comprehended through visualizing them; not though explaining. If people understood themes just by having them explained then there is quite frankly no reason having them in stories. Anyways besides bullshit that you don’t care to know, let me help you comprehend the themes behind fight club. As you all know, everybody in fight club is portrayed in misery, despair, and a will to break free from the modern slavery that they have been conceived in. Edward Norton’s character (who is basically nameless until we find out in the end is Tyler Durden) can easily see this among people and himself. He relates himself to the people among him in which he cant help but to pity them. So its evident that he pities himself. Through his fairly intelligent thoughts he analyzes every single thing about life and seems to be bored of it. Nothing can bring him happiness; nothing can bring him from the harsh reality of the world he lives in. that is until he attends a support group for testicular cancer victims and, after fooling them into thinking that he is a fellow victim, finds an emotional release that relieves his insomnia. He becomes addicted to attending support groups and pretending to be a victim, but the presence of another impostor—Marla Singer disturbs him, so he negotiates with her to avoid their meeting at the same groups. However, his subconscious mind suddenly cant seem to give him full rights over him anymore. The intense stress on his brain creates “Tyler Durden,” as a person Tyler would want to be and causes Tyler to create that imaginary person who has the same name. one question I’ve always asked is how did he forget that was his name lol. Anyway, the imaginary friend that Tyler creates seems to have intense knowledge and finds a way to organize a cult or whatever you want to call it of what seems to be miserable impressionable people. He gives them missions that seem somewhat odd, but all seem to add up as the story progresses. He has now built his army and plans to do what he has planed to do from the start; destroy the credit card records that keep everyone in debt. Now if your up on your history, you should start seeing the similarities between socialism and capitalism and the themes in fight club. Karl Marx, the philosopher who wrote the communist manifesto stated that one day, all of the proletariat (lower class workers) who are spending most of their lives working for shit will have an uprising against the bourgeoisie (upper classes) and bring them to their destruction. Well it’s the same shit in fight club. Tyler attacks capitalism and tries to bring it at an end to start something where everyone is equal. That’s why if you noticed Tyler couldn’t help but remind people of how they were not special; they were the same organic matter as anything else. This was a straight up communism movie. Capitalism and democracy have kept us in a class society and Tyler sought the opposite. Notice how when Tyler put the revolver in the back of the guys head and put fear into him for his own benefit. To be a better man by forcing him to become what he had wanted to become as a child but let it slip passed him because no one made him. Think this shit hasn’t happened? Is has; that’s how dictators came about. Now getting back to the story, the conscious Tyler discovers everything and begins to unravel what his subconscious mind is plotting. I don’t know if he really ever finds out what the plot is but he’s determined to gain full control of his mind and body again so he blasts his subconscious mind to shit. Though the project… Project mayhem, turns out to be a success.

So out of all that; u can find a shit load of themes.. Mainly about freedom and righteousness…. And how lack of fear can be a lack of motivation. and of course others. Hoped this helped u get a clearer understanding of the theme.

there's honestly so many different ways to interpret Fight Club and so much to say about it that we can probably spend the rest of our lives interpreting it and still be coming up with new readings of the book. its something you can read and each time come out with something new. As for me and what I think, I saw themes of masculinity and societal pressure; identity and the discovery of the self not through things but through deeds; the definition of life, as opposed to just going through the motions and doing what you're told; very pro working class in the first half and sporadically throughout, this book was partially written as a response to the rejection of Invisible Monsters by editors. But yeah there's tons of shit and it's funny because I've heard Chuck say several times that he's not a very smart guy, but honestly, the man is brilliant

Important Disclaimer: Although this is Chuck Palahniuk’s official website, we are in essence, more an official ‘fansite.’ Chuck Palahniuk himself does not own nor run this website. Nor did he create it. It was started by Dennis Widmyer, who is the webmaster and editor of most of the content. Chuck Palahniuk himself should not be held accountable nor liable for any of the content posted on this website. The opinions expressed in the news updates, content pages and message boards are not the opinions of Chuck Palahniuk nor his publishers. If you are trying to contact Chuck Palahniuk, sending emails to this website will not get you there. You should instead, take the more professional route of contacting his publicist at Doubleday.